Add documentation regarding conflicting event notification rules

[jasonpanosso]

Existing documentation URL(s)

• https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/buckets/event-notifications/

What changes are you suggesting?

Provide documentation regarding when event notification rules conflict with other event notification rules

Additional information

e.g. when adding an event notification rule on some bucket for some queue, you can not have multiple event notifications configured for the same action, e.g. 'PutObject'. It will give you an error mentioning that there are conflicting rules.

[harshil1712]

Hey @jasonpanosso, I tried the following and got no errors. The event notification rules were created successfully.

• Create a rule for object-create for Queue A
• Create a rule for object-create for Queue B
• Create a rule for object-delete for Queue B

All the above cases were a success. Can you please share what exact error you got? Were you using prefix or suffix with your rules? Or were you trying to use the same Queue for two different buckets?

[jasonpanosso]

Hey @jasonpanosso, I tried the following and got no errors. The event notification rules were created successfully.

* Create a rule for `object-create` for Queue A

* Create a rule for `object-create` for Queue B

* Create a rule for `object-delete` for Queue B

All the above cases were a success. Can you please share what exact error you got? Were you using prefix or suffix with your rules? Or were you trying to use the same Queue for two different buckets?

I was specifically getting an error regarding "conflicting event notification rules" when creating rules that are effectively the same using this api endpoint.

Do you get an error in this situation?

• create a rule for PutObject + DeleteObject for Queue A for Bucket A
• create a rule for PutObject + CopyObject for Queue A for Bucket A

I would have expected that to work considering the API endpoint was a PUT, but it seems that it acts more like a POST considering that it doesn't seem to overwrite/replace existing rules and isn't idempotent

[harshil1712]

@jasonpanosso, I was able to replicate your issue. I am not sure if it is a limitation or a bug. I am checking with the team to get a clarity. Post that we will update the documentation, if needed. Thank you again for reporting it!